International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD)
Volume 4 Issue 6, September-October 2020 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 – 6470
Soil Structure Interaction Analysis of Multi Storey
Building Frame for Seismic Load using SAP2000
Shristee Saxena1, Prof. Juhi Nigam2
1Research
Scholar, 2Assistant Professor,
1,2Department of Civil Engineering, Lakshmi Narain College of Technology, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
ABSTRACT
Presently a day the human life and the climate have often been jeopardized by
the characteristic perils like seismic tremor, torrent, flood, twister and
avalanches. As an outcome of which the human culture and the country's
economy get hampered following the event of a catastrophic event. In
agricultural nations like India, where the populace is huge and is expanding
step by step, the social and financial components power individuals to live in
weak territories, because of which the impacts of these cataclysmic events are
disastrous. Among every one of these dangers, liquefaction of soil can be
brought up as one of the most appalling seismic perils. Consequently
assessment of liquefaction helplessness is a significant part of geotechnical
designing. Soil-structure connection impact in the examination and plan of RC
outline structures is progressively perceived yet not infiltrated to the grass
root level attributable to different complexities included. It is settled reality
that the dirt structure collaboration impact significantly impact the plan of
multi-story structures exposed to parallel seismic burdens. In this
examination we are performing seismic appraisal utilizing Analytical
apparatus SAP2000 over a midrise building outline where we will give
sidelong load to zone V (0.36) to decide soil structure communication for
parallel burdens, for this investigation a midrise even structure of G+7 storey
is considered.
How to cite this paper: Shristee Saxena |
Prof. Juhi Nigam "Soil Structure
Interaction Analysis of Multi Storey
Building Frame for Seismic Load using
SAP2000" Published
in
International
Journal of Trend in
Scientific Research
and
Development
(ijtsrd), ISSN: 24566470, Volume-4 |
IJTSRD33689
Issue-6,
October
2020,
pp.1361-1366,
URL:
www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd33689.pdf
Copyright © 2020 by author(s) and
International Journal of Trend in Scientific
Research and Development Journal. This
is an Open Access article distributed
under the terms of
the
Creative
Commons Attribution
License
(CC
BY
4.0)
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
1. INTRODUCTION
The traditional basic examination of a RC space casing is
done expecting establishment laying on fixed end underpins.
The investigation is completed by considering base part of
the arrangement fixed and ignoring the impact of soil
distortions. In all actuality, any building casing lays on
deformable soil bringing about redistribution of powers and
minutes because of soil-structure interaction. In this manner,
traditional examination is ridiculous and might be
dangerous. The interaction impact is increasingly articulated
if there should be an occurrence of multi-storeyed buildings
because of overwhelming burdens and may turn out to be
additionally disturbed when such buildings are exposed to
seismic burdens.
It is ordinarily accepted that SSI is a simply useful impact,
and it can advantageously be dismissed for traditionalist
design. SSI arrangements of seismic design codes are
discretionary and enable designers to diminish the design
base shear of structures by considering soil-structure
interaction (SSI) as a gainful impact. The fundamental
thought behind the arrangements is that the soil-structure
framework can be supplanted with a proportionate fixedbase model with a more drawn out period and typically a
bigger damping proportion. A large portion of the design
codes use distorted design spectra, which achieve consistent
increasing speed up to a specific period, and from that point
diminishes monotonically with period. Considering soilstructure interaction makes a structure progressively
@ IJTSRD
|
Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD33689
|
adaptable and along these lines, expanding the common time
of the structure contrasted with the comparing unbendingly
bolstered structure. In addition, considering the SSI impact
expands the viable damping proportion of the framework.
The smooth glorification of design range recommends littler
seismic reaction with the expanded normal time frames and
successful damping proportion due to SSI, which is the
principle defense of the seismic design codes to diminish the
design base shear when the SSI impact is considered.
In this study we are comparing a high rise unsymmetrical
structure of G+7 storey considering seismic zone V with two
different soil conditions i.e. soft soil (black cotton soil) and
medium soil (loamy soil), In this study we are interacting
structure and soil using analysis tool SAP2000.
2. Soil Structure Interaction
Soil-structure interaction examination assesses the
aggregate reaction of these frameworks to a predefined
ground movement. The terms Soil-Structure Interaction
(SSI) and Soil-Foundation-Structure Interaction (SFSI) are
both used to portray this impact in the writing. In this report,
the establishment is viewed as a major aspect of the
structure, and the term SSI has been received. A seismic soilstructure interaction examination assesses the aggregate
reaction of the structure, the establishment, and the geologic
media basic and encompassing the establishment, to a
predetermined free-field ground movement. The term free-
Volume – 4 | Issue – 6
|
September-October 2020
Page 1361
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
field alludes to movements that are not influenced by basic
vibrations or the dissipating of waves at, and around, the
establishment. SSI impacts are missing for the hypothetical
state of an inflexible establishment bolstered on unbending
soil. In like manner, SSI represents the distinction between
the genuine reaction of the structure and the reaction of the
hypothetical, unbending base condition.
considerable difference. The analysis was predicting that
percentage difference in bending moment in beam, column
and footings was at lower EFS value i.e 0.010N/mm3 at
lower footing size 1mX1m was greater than when compared
to higher EFS value i.e 0.050N/mm3 at higher footing size
4.5mX4.5m which considers soil interaction. But in case of
the footings they undergo some settlement the percentage
difference of settlement was 14.41% and 6.72% at lower EFS
value i.e 0.010N/mm3 at lower footing size 1mx1m when
compared to higher EFS value i.e 0.050N/mm3 at higher
footing size 4.5mx4.5m respectively, which considers soil
interaction.
Magade S. B and Prof. Patankar J. P (2018)this research
paper presented different parameter such as soil structure
interaction, types of soil, stiffness of infill walls, and location
of walls influences time period, displacement and base shear
of building frame considerably. Hence it was important to
consider to all these parameters in the analysis of structures.
Shear walls located in the central part of the multistoried
building gives lesser displacement and more base shear
compared to other locations.
Fig 1: Soil Structure Interaction
3. SAP2000
SAP2000 information, including model data, investigation
results, and configuration results, can be gotten to utilizing a
forbidden information structure. Forbidden information can
be altered and showed in the interface, or traded to a
Microsoft Access database document, a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet record, or a straightforward book document.
You can utilize traded information to make reports or to
perform specific computations. This equivalent unthinkable
information can be brought into SAP2000, empowering you
to produce or alter models outside SAP2000. Import and fare
abilities additionally exist for other prevalent drafting and
configuration programs.
4. Objectives
A. To check the stability of soil - structure interaction in
Seismic hazard.
B. To determine the effect of lateral load over two different
soil type i.e. Loamy & Black cotton soil.
C. To determine the Utilization of Analytical tool SAP2000
in soil & Structure Interaction.
D. To determine the variation in forces, stability,
displacement and other important criteria or safe
structure.
5. LITERATYRE REVIEW
Supriya and Reddy (2019) this research paper presented
the effects of soil interaction on building frame design
parameters as change of modulus of sub-grade reaction from
0.010 to 0.050 N/mm3 the analysis was done on parameters
namely shear force, bending moment and settlements for
different footing sizes of 1mx1m to 4.5mx4.5m the effect of
SSI was quantified using finite element analysis. The
conclusion derived from the research paper stated that the
shear force and axial force value in the beam and column is
constant from finite element analysis was not having
@ IJTSRD
|
Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD33689
|
HailuGetachewKabtamu et al. (2018)this research
paperdynamic analysis of Soil Structure Interaction (SSI)
effect on multi story reinforced concrete (RC) frame founded
on soft soil (flexible base) and comparison was made with
fixed base. Two model 2D RC frames with 7 and 12 story are
selected for analysis. Winkler Spring and half space direct
method models are used for flexible base for the frames
founded on two types of soft soils with shear velocity Vs<
150 m/s Asper Seismic Codes of Chinese GB50011-2010 Soil
IV and Ethiopian ES8-2015 soil D. The frames are subjected
to strong ground motion matched to response spectrums of
soft soil of Chinese GB50011-2010 and Ethiopian ES8-2015
for linear time history analysis. The dynamic analysis result
showcased Spring and Fixed base mass participation 90%
reaches in 2 or 3 modes but in direct method 11 to 30 modes
for story 12 and 7 respectively.
The results led to the conclusion that SSI effect may not be
always beneficial in multi-story RC frame compared to fixed
base. Because the beneficial effect reduction in base shear
may be smaller than detrimental effect of P-delta increment
on vertical load carrying members. The results obtained in
this study is limited to linear time history analysis regular 2D
RC frame; however it is good indicator of SSI effect.
6. METHODOLOGY
Following steps are required in a sequence for proper
completion:
Step-1 Select Geometrical data and modelling of
structure using SAP2000.
An RCC Structure is rigid to get together of Beams, Columns,
Slabs, and establishment between associated with one
another as a solitary unit. For the most part, the uniform load
in these structures is from chunk to bar, from shaft to the
segment lastly section to the establishment which thus
exchanges the whole load to the soil.
Volume – 4 | Issue – 6
|
September-October 2020
Page 1362
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
Step-2: Defining material and soil property for study.
Fig 2: Material & Soil Property
Step-3: Creating Soil Mass below the structure:
SAP2000 give us a development alternative to give material properties in a particular way to dole out in structure. In SAP2000
we are allowed to dole out any sort of material as it gives a practical altering device to make the material
Step-4: Assigning Boundary Conditions
In SAP2000 we are allowed to assign out any sort of help either settled, stick or roller for which we have to tap on dole out
instrument on the menu bar > then we will choose joint > after that we have select the kind of help we have to assign it.
Step-5: Interacting RCC Structure over the soil
In this study we are assigning G +7 Structure above soil which is fixed 1.5 m below the soil to have interaction and load
distribution.
Step-6: Load Combinations
The accompanying burden blends will be accounted as given in I.S. 1893 (Part I): 2016 (Sec. 6.3.1.2).
Step-7: Interacting Soil and structure
Soil mass and structure is done by fixing structure 1.5 meter below the soil for proper distribution of support reaction to the
soil mass. Which is effected to 18 m beneath the soil as observed after analysis.
Step-8: Analysis of soil structure
Finite element analysis is performed using SAP2000 software, for this analysis soil mass is meshed in elements to determine
the minute variation in different elements of the soil.
Step-9: Comparative Analysis
This step we will compare results of both type of soil to determine the variation in reactions, forces and moment.
7. PROBLEM FORMULATION
7.1. Modelling of Building Frame
SAP2000 is a multipurpose program for investigation of structure. The accompanying three exercises must be performed to
accomplish that objective.
Modeling of the diverse cases in SAP2000
Calculation and Provisions according to Indian principles can be connected.
Analysis of structure to decide forces, reactions and moment producing in a casing.
8. ANALYSIS RESULT
The fundamental standards hidden the FEM are generally straightforward. Consider a body or designing part through which
the conveyance of a field variable, for example relocation or stress, is required. Models could be a part under load,
temperatures subject to a warmth input, and so forth. The body, for example a one-, a few dimensional strong, is demonstrated
as being speculatively subdivided into a gathering of little parts called elements – 'finite elements'. The word 'finite' is utilized
to portray the constrained, or finite, number of degrees of opportunity used to display the conduct of every element. The
elements are thought to be associated with each other, yet just at interconnected joints, known as hubs. Note that the elements
are notionally little districts, not separate substances like blocks, and there are no breaks or surfaces between them.
@ IJTSRD
|
Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD33689
|
Volume – 4 | Issue – 6
|
September-October 2020
Page 1363
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
8.1.
Soil Mass at Top of the soil:
Table 1: Soil Stress in X Direction
Soil Stress in X Direction kN/m2
Black Cotton Soil Loamy Soil
S11
S11
KN/m2
KN/m2
-3.37
-13.37
-3.37
-13.36
-4.48
-13.68
-4.48
-13.68
-6.11
-15.19
-6.11
-15.19
-7.27
-15.57
-7.27
-15.57
Fig 3: Soil Stress in X Direction
A. Shear Force:
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
0th
Table 2 Shear Force
Shear Force KN
Black Cotton Soil Loamy Soil
-18.406
49.721
10.579
-17.017
0.372
-4.211
-1.232
-13.971
-4.153
-0.637
-0.45
9.005
-0.649
-1.626
-1.908
-0.976
Fig 4: Shear Force in Column C1
@ IJTSRD
|
Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD33689
|
Volume – 4 | Issue – 6
|
September-October 2020
Page 1364
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
B. Bending Moment:
Table 3 Bending Moment kN-m
Bending Moment KN-m
Black Cotton Soil
Loamy Soil
7th
834.3382
1114.696
6th
834.3382
1114.696
5th
1273.4892
1372.6329
4th
1273.4892
1372.6329
3rd
1193.0957
1086.2582
2nd
1193.0957
1086.2582
1st
149.4738
-41.2863
0th
0.03709
0.07276
Fig 5: Bending moment in Column C1
9. Conclusion:
This study explores the SSI effect on the overall risk of a mid
rise building structure with respect to two failure modes:
strength in terms of plate and joint forces, moment,
Displacement and Support reaction at the base of the
structure
10. REFERENCES
[1] A Supriya and R Reddy, Soil Interaction of Building
Frame Resting on Clayey Soil: Effect of Change of
Footing Size], International Journal of Recent
Technology and Engineering (IJRTE), ISSN: 22773878, Volume-8 Issue-2, July 2019
A. It is observed in the above analysis that loamy soil is
18.50 % more stable in resisting forces.
[2]
A Bogdanovic, K Edip, Marta, and Simulation of soil
structure interaction problems considering material
properties], Journal of Scientific and Engineering
Research, 2016, 3(2):132-139.
[3]
Ghalimath A.G, More Sheetal. A, HattiMantesh. A,
JamadarChaitrali. A [Analytical Approaches for Soil
Structure Interaction] International Research Journal
of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Volume: 02
Issue: 05 | Aug-2015
[4]
G. Saad, F. Saddik& S. Najjar[ Impact of Soil Structure
Interaction on the Seismic Design of Reinforced
Concrete Buildings with Underground Stories], Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 33, 2012, pp.
958-967.
[5]
HailuGetachewKabtamu, Gang Peng, Denghong Chen.
[Dynamic Analysis of Soil Structure Interaction Effect
B. It is observed that effect of lateral forces is more in black
cotton soil as compared to loamy soil.
C.
It is observed that soil mass is meshed finitely in
SAP2000 which provide accurate and linear results.
D. It can be concluded that there is variation in both the
cases i.e. structure under black cotton soil and loamy
soil, as forces and moment are varying by 16% and 14 %
respectively.
E.
The consideration of SSI shows a complete conflicting
effect on the seismic fragility and risk depending on the
two different soil failure modes. This has a positive
effect regarding the strength failure mode, but this
brings a negative effect regarding the displacement
failure mode.
@ IJTSRD
|
Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD33689
|
Volume – 4 | Issue – 6
|
September-October 2020
Page 1365
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470
on Multi Story RC Frame] Open Journal of Civil
Engineering, 2018, 8, 426-446.
[6]
[7]
[8]
Magade S. B and Prof. Patankar J. P. [Effect of Soil
Structure Interaction on the Dynamic Behavior of
Buildings] IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil
Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) ISSN: 2278-1684, PP: 09-14
Nimisha Ann Sunny Dr. Alice Mathai [Soil Structure
Interaction Analysis of Multi Storey Building], IJSTE International Journal of Science Technology &
Engineering | Volume 3 | Issue 11 | May 2017.
Nitish Kumar S and Praveen J V [Study of Soil
Structure Interaction Effect on Multi-Storey RC Frame
Structures Resting Over Raft Foundation under
@ IJTSRD
|
Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD33689
|
Earthquake Caused Agitation], International Journal
of Civil and Structural Engineering Research, Vol. 4,
Issue 1, pp.: (95-102), Month: April 2016 - September
2016
[9]
Peizhen Li, Xilin Lu, Bo Chen and Yueqing Chen
[COMPUTER SIMULATION ON DYNAMIC SOILSTRUCTURE INTERACTION SYSTEM] 13th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 1-6,
2004 Paper No. 3233
[10]
Prakash M. Yesane, Y. M. Ghugal, R. L. Wankhade
[Study on Soil-Structure Interaction: A Review]
International Journal of Engineering Research ISSN:
2319-6890), 2347-
Volume – 4 | Issue – 6
|
September-October 2020
Page 1366